The Libertarian Solution to Police Brutality?

Getting one's rights abused by the government is awful because in general, people tend to have little chance of getting restitution against their abusers. Government has more financial muscle (by stealing from everyone else) and it's various laws that give agents of said abuse sovereign immunity to prevent accountability. This along with the libertarian understanding of history are why many if not all view government as evil. One can argue that police brutality is one of the worse abuses of government given how much of a presence police have in the general populace.

Unlike conservatives (with very few exceptions) who think police brutality is a myth (or alternatively think certain groups of people deserve it from initial contact), libertarians of all stripes know that abuses from armed agents (along with their unions) of government are a serious problem that needs to be addressed. People that actually see that there is a problem want to know what can be done to stem the abuse and hold abusers accountable.

While filming police (tactics promoted by excellent organizations such as Copblock and Photography is Not a Crime) has increased attention to the issue and exposed lying cops, the actual accountability is far and few in between. Filming also comes with risks, with police confiscating recording devices and deleting the footage along with arresting them on bogus charges. Along with independent citizens filming there have been suggestions that having police wear body cameras would help stem abuse but so far the results are mixed. Some suggest to working within the system to remove bad laws that police use to harass people that cannot fight back. Within the system one has to attack and dismantle police unions (which for some reason anti-union conservatives won't attack) who are very responsible for the little to no punishment police receive when they infringe on the rights of the citizenry. Full and complete end of all victimless crime laws (drug, gun, etc) would also stem much of the harassment of lower income people.

With the continuing of militarization of police there must be a call to limit police interactions and government is not going to help with that. The solution is to use alternatives to relying on government agents. Those solutions would be the following:

1. Cell 411

Cell 411 is a free emergency management mobile service. Create your own personal network with friends and family that you trust in case anyone needs help. In addition it's useful for those who engage in protests and activism with it's option for live broadcasting. Think a more personal version of a neighborhood watch.

2. Asserting Your Right to Bare Arms

A common trope that police worshipers like use against their critics is that without them nobody would protect you. Never mind the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise. Libertarians believe gun rights are an absolute and that everyone has the right to defend themselves and carry arms. Banding together with other gun owners who distrust police to patrol neighborhoods with deter potential criminals who see that they'll get shot. In addition any potential police harassment will shine a light on the conservative lie that police won't confiscate arms.

3. Creating private defense/security companies

The private sector has a significantly better track record than the government (parasite) sector and security is no different. When Detroit went bankrupt many of the government "services" were cut back including the police. In enter Threat Management founded by Dale Brown a private security firm that does the same thing government police do but without violating the rights of people. For more information on Brown here are some interviews with Copblock, Tom Woods and Jeff Berwick.
3. Avoiding the police and Blue Lives Matter when possible

Defense attorney's make their case (Part 1 and Part 2) that one should never talk to police. This should also should apply to people who apart of Blue Lives Matter. Not wanting to associate myself with cops and conservatives are one of the reasons why I personally am not a member of any gun groups. Statists don't like being challenged and sometimes may get violent (either directly or indirectly) when they are. De-associating one self from open authoritarians of all political stripes who may or may not make use of Swatting when these types of people hear of your views can help with preserving your own personal liberty.

Part of the reason for using alternative solutions to government is to deny government revenue. This is why I view protesting as pointless and ineffective. This may different depending on the state but in my state of New York, police are paid overtime when out covering protest gatherings. As we libertarians know, a cop's "paycheck" is in reality a welfare check so by protesting people are in fact increasing the tax (read stolen) money given to the parasite class. Not to mention that government will always try to infiltrate these protests with agitators to get them to turn violent in order to justify more liberty crackdowns.

I'm not going to sit here and say these solutions will put the government monopoly out to pasture overnight. However it's been long overdue to get people to realize that individuals must provide their own self defense.

Secession is a Libertarian Value

While the Brexit has yet to be fully completed, secession has become a hot topic on the political forefront once again. Secession has unfortunately gotten a bad reputation due to being wrongly and exclusively tied to the U.S. Civil War and slavery. This is a tactic is used by statists to discredit the idea of secession. While the Confederate States of America did want to secede from the U.S., that doesn't tell the entire truth about the concept of secession.

What is secession exactly? Well wikipedia defines secession the following way;

the withdrawal of a group from a larger entity, especially a political entity (a country), but also any organization, union or military alliance. 

Using this definition how can anyone think that secession would be a bad thing? Another way to view secession is that it's a political divorce. Last I checked divorce is a pretty socially acceptable thing now a days. Just how when two married people no longer decide that they can make a union work they agree (or one serves divorce papers to the other) to go their seperate ways, political entities should be allowed to do the same thing when they feel that the relationship no longer is mutual beneficial.

Secession is a libertarian value because libertarians advocate for self rule, self determination and decentralization. Secession is a important step to achieving those three goals. This is why the Brexit vote happened. The British were tired of being ruled by unaccountable people in Brussels, Belgium and decided that they had enough of being involved in the European Union. Despite my own personal view (the Anarcho-Capitalist view) that people don't need a ruler, breaking away from a ruler of a large entity to a smaller one (who in theory is more directly accountable) is still a good idea. It's also why I support the Texas Secession movement despite being from New York. As a matter of fact I support secession of all fifty states from the United States Federal Government. Let Hillary or Trump be left to rule the District of Criminals and that's it.

However libertarians shouldn't just cheer one secession movements, they also should be leading them. Lets be honest winning the White House isn't going to be happening anytime soon, the Libertarian Party having one of the best opportunities in decades essentially blew it when it nominated Gary Johnson and Bill Weld as their 2016 Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates.
Before that, the original libertarian Tea Party movement (the one that was birthed out of Ron Paul's 2008 campaign, not Glenn Beck's crocodile tears) allowed itself to become corrupted and statist after foolishly extending hands to paleoconservatives, warvangelicals and neoconservatives who then in turn kicked libertarians out. Taking advance of the secessionist sentiment along with taking them over and leading them would be a boon for liberty. What I mean by such a take over is to get into high positions in these movements and diminish the statist conservative (sorry for being redundant) voice. History has shown that conservatism isn't about liberty but just a different breed of statism. Just how they pulled the rug out from under us, it's time for payback while advocating for liberty at the same time. Libertarians (yes even the non-politically active ones) should use these movements to spread the ideas of liberty such as ending the fascist Drug War, the welfare state, warfare state, national security state, showing that taxation is theft among others. Such an opportunity to push real liberty can't be overlooked.

Here is a few secessionist movements that exist already:

California National Party

Republic of New England (site) (Facebook)  (Twitter)

Texas Nationalist Movement (Site) (Twitter)

Libertarian Infighting Needs to End

There are several different ways to cripple if not outright destroy a movement. Infighting in my opinion has to be the worst among them because it destroys a movement from within. Infighting causes movements to take sight off of the enemy, view themselves as the enemy while the main goal becomes swept under the rug. It's bad enough when one has to worry about their enemies attacking them while not being sure if the ones you call friends won't sucker punch you.

Over the past week or so I noticed on twitter various libertarian anarcho-capitalists I follow attacking each other because some are advocating voting for one of the Libertarian party candidates in the presidential election in November. For the record I don't vote as I like many anarcho-capitalists view voting as a waste of time because the system itself is rigged. However I won't attack a fellow libertarian for voting like I would attack a liberal, a conservative, or a neoreactionary on their brand of statism. In Man vs The Welfare State, Henry Hazlitt said that libertarians need to attack from multiple directions if the movement has any hope of advancing real liberty. Hazlitt is right in that regard, especially in today's world where statism has morphed into several different forms.

Getting into awful and hateful arguments because some in the movement are pushing others to vote is a waste of time. I was watching a YouTube video between radio host Scott Horton and Jeffery Tucker in which Horton said that he views the Anti-Trump and Pro-Trump groups getting into fights as when red shirts were getting into fights with brown shirts in 1930s Germany. These are the types of groups libertarians as a whole should be fighting with, not with ourselves. There will always be people within the movement that people will or won't like. I'm sure those who are reading this can name three to five writers, podcasters, speakers, etc that they like or have a problem with. Libertarians should be attacking warmongers, protectionists, economic interventionists, anti-government accountability groups, those who hate individual rights and believe the "greater good or the majority" takes precedent, anti-self defense groups, drug warriors, those who support foreign aid, etc. These are the people who are enemies of liberty not ourselves.

Does the Black Lives Matter Movement hurt the Police Accountability Movement?

Police are out of control; the militarization that has gone on since the beginning of the drug war, the complete lack of accountability and their blatant and sometimes open hatred and disregard for the civil liberties of the citizens they claim to protect to name a few. Those who think that this doesn't exist are the same who said "If you're not doing anything bad then you have nothing to be afraid of" when the PATRIOT Act was passed. Whether you're in the camp of Robert Higgs who believes there is no such thing as a good cop or the camp of Radley Balko who believes that there are good cops, the overall issue is that domestic policing in the US is a problem that needs to be fixed.

I'm a open supporter of police accountability sites such as Copblock and Photography is Not a Crime. These are two of the best sites out there when it comes to exposing police misconduct no matter who the victim of said misconduct is. In addition they both highlight police officers who cross the thin blue line who get punished by the same corrupt system that they are exposing. Obviously like any group they have their own share of criticism from both those within the movement and it's enemies.

One group within the police accountability movement that I believe is hurting the movement and giving more talking points to government defenders (collectively known as Blue Lives Matter or like some Anarcho-Capitalists say Blue Lives Murder) is the Black Lives Matter movement. The movement that spawned after the death of Michael Brown and trial of Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri. When it started on it's face it had a legitimize set of grievances that appealed to the police accountability movement. However this is before the riots in Ferguson and Baltimore and most recently the movement assault on libertarian activist Adam Kokesh. Assault on innocent businesses and innocent people is wrong as is also collective judgement and punishment. Nobody has the right to assault another outside of self defense despite what some on the left and right think it's wrong. More evidence seems to emerge every so often that Black Lives Matter has devolved like most liberal movements into just being against anyone who isn't liberal and unfortunately a racial competent is involved too.

Not only do assaults on innocent people hurt the police accountability movement, their gun control stances hurt it too. Despite US Supreme Court rulings that haven shown that police forces do not have an obligation to protect individuals just enforce laws, government defenders continue to use the argument that any reforms such as actual accountability will prevent the police from protecting you. One of the solutions that should be included in any police reform proposal should be unrestricted civilian access to firearms. To quote Freedoms Phoenix owner Earnest Handcock "The second amendment is for everyone" Gun control laws only hurt innocent people and embolden those who want to commit acts of violence against peaceful people. As the old saying goes; "An armed society is a peaceful one".

With these acts I personally see no reason why any libertarian anarcho-capitalist could in good principal support the Black Lives Matter movement as a whole nor it's faces of the movement such as Cassandra Fairbanks (who many libertarians rightly and openly dislike). Support for the Black Lives Matter movement only give police statists more ammo to use against us which will undo much of the work the police accountability movement has done.

No Scottie Hughes, Libertarians are not Conservatives

Perhaps I'm wasting my time but Garry Reed of Examiner reports on how conservative Scottie Hughes joins the long list of conservatives who have no actual idea on what libertarianism is. Lets go through the points that she considers what libertarians to be;

Until Libertarians have a serious candidate running on more than just legalization of marijuana, both Republicans and Democrats have an equal chance at recruiting this growing bloc of voters, especially among the younger voters who have recently turned to the Libertarian viewpoint as a result of their mistrust of Government. 

What exactly does Hughes consider a serious candidate? I think if a candidate and their staff (especially third party candidates) spend the time and resources to collect signatures and run a campaign would be considered a serious candidate. Not to mention also fighting challenges to ballot access that come from the liberal and conservative candidates.

Saying that libertarians only care about marijuana legalization is pretty damm dishonest if not out right stupid. Was Hughes not paying any attention to Ron Paul's 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns? Other than talking about the statist drug war Ron Paul went into depth about foreign policy, monetary policy, trade, the national security state, the patriot act, personal liberty among others. The top libertarians websites such as LewRockwell.com, EconomicpolicyJournal.com and Antiwar.com along with libertarian figures like Judge Andrew Napolitano, Justin Raimondo, Radley Balko and Karen DeCoster advocate issues other than the legalization of marijuana.

For years, GOP grandees have taken it for granted that Libertarians would be with them come Election Day. After all, aren't Libertarians essentially free-market, freedom-loving conservatives who just don't want to be formally affiliated with Republicans?

Well she does get right that the Republican party has taken advantage of libertarian voters during the times that conservatives have power but to say that libertarians are just conservatives who don't want to be associated with the Republican party is just a lie. I can only speak for myself but I rather be lynched by David Duke himself than be associated with conservatives and conservatism.

To quote Lew Rockwell;

"What does conservatism today stand for? It stands for war. It stands for power. It stands for spying, jailing without trial, torture, counterfeiting without limit, and lying from morning to night. There comes a time in the life of every believer in freedom when he must declare, without any hesitation, to have no attachment to the idea of conservatism."

Conservatives want to fool independents and middle of the road voters that they're the ones who will stop the movement of statism. Sure conservatives are against statist programs such as Obamacare and gun control but even on those issues they're just as hypocritical as any run of the mill liberal. Remember conservatives weren't and still aren't against statist programs like domestic spying, the Patriot Act, the national security state and happily cheer on the military-industrial complex when their guys were in power. Yes some will point to paleoconservatives like Pat Buchanan and Chuck Baldwin as being against those things from day one but when reading about paleoconservatism one realizes that the paleoconservatives just want to enforce their own statist ideas onto people. For all the bluster conservatives go on about supporting liberty, their record shows that they do the complete opposite. Compare Ron Paul's congressional record to any of the so-called "real conservatives" that have served in the house alongside with him and Dr. Paul's record still wins out. Another stand out between libertarians and conservatives is the non-aggression principal. How many conservatives actually advocate let alone support the non-aggression principal? The answer is not too many if not zero.


By definition, a Libertarian is a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action. Libertarians believe in personal responsibility while preserving personal freedom. They oppose the Government interfering with any of their business, family, or personal decisions.

It all sounds like Republican boilerplate until you get to two issues that will cause Libertarians to defect to Democrats in droves, if they haven't already.

If conservatives were actually interested in keeping the state out of business, family and personal issues they would've resolved them during the three separate times they have gotten in power. The Reagan Revolution, the Republican Revolution in the 1990s and the Bush era. If conservatives were actually interested in true liberty;  the welfare state (social security, medicare, medicaid, SCHIP, etc), public schools, minimum wage, the militarization of domestic police forces and various gun control laws among other things wouldn't be here. The truth of the matter is they don't and only use it as campaign talking points.

To say that libertarians would all of a sudden flock to liberals is outright stupid and intellectually dishonest. There are as many problems with liberalism and there is with conservatism.



As the Democrats watch the Tea Party and other Conservative groups continue to grow in momentum towards 2014, they know they must appeal to Libertarians. And it is their libertine social views that could be an opening for voter recruitment. Watch as the Democrats start running more emotional campaign commercials focused on issues like equal marriage rights for all, how pot can relieve painful health symptoms, and an oppressive national security apparatus. The Republicans; however, might also tweak their message by focusing on the outrageous spending and new limits and restrictions which this Administration has implemented in volume on small businesses and individual freedoms.

Today's Libertarians are not very organized; however, with over 1 million voting for the official Libertarian Party's nominee in the last Presidential election, these voters will be even more valuable in a non-Presidential election. Let's just hope the majority of Libertarians are more influenced by the words of Reagan and Goldwater then Cheech and Chong.

The only way conservatives are going to appeal to libertarian voters is to reject conservatism. (see the Lew Rockwell quote) To claim that libertarians will be swayed by emotional campaigns by liberals is laughable and outright pathetic. Other than bluster there is nothing that conservatism offers that actually proves to the libertarian voter (the ones who still think that voting may work) that this time it will be different. As much as I hate Pat Buchanan, he was right, fusionism (the merging of libertarianism into the conservative movement) doesn't work and never well. For most libertarians

As for the invoking the conservative demi-god Ronald Reagan, the late Austrian economist Murray Rothbard exposed what "the gipper" really was; a statist.

Adam Kokesh Speaks from Prison

Robert Wenzel: Don't trust Rand Paul to be like Ron Paul

While many in the libertarian movement have disregarded Rand as another neocon who has no interest in abolishing statism. Some still want to carry idea that Rand is the best we have given that Ron is leaving congress. Robert Wenzel of Economic Policy Journal wants to set the record straight that no real libertarian worth his salt cannot support a statist like Rand.

_____________________________________

An Open Letter to Libertarians: Don't Be Fooled By Rand Paul

Dear Libertarians,

There is a big difference between Ron Paul and Rand Paul that appears to be missed by many. Ron Paul was not hungry to be president of the United States. If he would have been hungry, he would have booted his grandson in-law and that entire gang out early on in the primaries when it was clear they were positioning themselves not to advance Ron Paul and liberty, but to advance their own  careers. Ron Paul just wasn't that hungry to do that and be president. He was satisfied getting the libertarian message out.

Rand Paul is different. It appears that he wants to be president. Wanting to be president changes a man, wherever they start off from.

Full Letter is here 

Are Conservatives Starting To Become Scared?

It's getting to be that time again; another presidential election in which the two main choices don't show a dime's worth of difference between each other. Like clockwork, conservatives are trying to get libertarians on their side to support their statist. In enter Kurt Schlichter of Breitbart who makes a pathetic plea for libertarians to support the constitution.

Adam Kokesh of Adam vs. The Man delivers a nice rebuttal of it

Whats the difference between Libertarians and the Tea Party?

This video seems pretty accurate on the differences

Current State of New York's 2010 Picture

2010 is upon us and New York has a chance to clean the slate. The Governor’s Mansion and both Senate seats are up for grabs. Not only do the three seats have challenges from opposing parties but there seems to be trouble in paradise in the New York Democratic Party as well.

Chuck Schumer

Not much noise has been made from any of the opposition parties in regards to taking on New York’s top Democrat but there is a rumbling from within the party. In enter Randy Credico a comedian turn political activist. Credico comparing Schumer and the state party to Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall, the Democratic Party political machine in New York City that ran the show from 1790 to 1960. Credico as far as I know is the only Democrat in New York to call Schumer for what he really is a Neocon in disguise. Credico’s positions range from being Anti-Patriot Act, War on Drugs to Pro-Second Amendment and Fiscal Sanity. Positions like this put him the Blue Dog category, and in my opinion possibly a Ron Paul Democrat. One has to wonder; this guy is a politician? Unofficial rumors circulating among the New York Libertarian Party is that Credico may seek the Libertarian Party and possibly Independence Party lines due to New York’s electoral fusion system.

Kristen Gillibrand

Gillibrand was never a favorite among NY Democratic leadership with her positions on guns, taxes and illegal immigration. The day Governor Paterson appointed her to the Senate the jeers began from liberal leaders contesting that she’s a Republican in disguise. Gillibrand won her election against John Sweeney in the 20^th congressional district due to her Blue Dog views. Not too long after the appointment Carolyn McCarthy became heavily speculated in challenging her but decided ultimately to drop out and support her election instead. My personal guess would because Gillibrand has voted for the debacle that is being touted as a “health care” bill.

Two Democratic challengers have stepped up to the plate though; Populist Dr Scott Noren from Ithaca and Liberal Jonathan Tasini who was one Hillary Clinton’s primary opponents in the 2006 election. A third possible challenge in the name of Harold Ford Jr a Blue Dog Democrat may come into the Democratic bag. Ford’s positions currently put him to the right of Gillibrand. Ford is currently being accused of being a carpetbagger and rightfully so. Republicans at this time do not have any official declared candidates while many speculating that Former Governor George Pataki may give it a go. Currently the Libertarian, Conservative, Green, nor Independence Parties have announced any challenges to Gillibrand.

David Paterson

After taking the reigns when Eliot Spitzer decided to have some happy time and get caught the budget crisis reared its ugly head. It seemed that early on Paterson made a turn to the right in regards to fiscal policy but even the well intentioned Paterson couldn’t overcome the schoolyard fighting that is Albany. As it stands now we were able to stay afloat after Christmas when reports came out that the state would’ve been broke by then. Due to fears from National and Local Democrats that Paterson running for a full term would end up losing the Governor’s Mansion many have urged Paterson not to run including President Obama. In addition when he appointed Gillibrand to the Senate many Democratic feathers were ruffled as well.

Currently the only speculated primary challenge Paterson may face would be Attorney General Andrew Cuomo who is also the son of Former NY Governor Mario Cuomo. On the Republican side Rick Lazio is only one who has officially entered his hat into the ring. His website doesn’t state much on the issues, fellow Libertarians have told me that he is just a male version of Clinton. Eric County Executive Chris Collins is considering a run and is believed to make his decision this month. The Libertarian Party currently has two candidates vying for the nomination Criminal Defense and Personal Injury Attorney Warren Redlich and DVD and Book publisher Sam Sloan. Alison Duncan who ran for Lieutenant Governor in 2006 as a Green recently lashed out at Paterson for being tied to corporate interests and doing nothing he and Eliot Spitzer campaigned for back in the 2006 election. It is unknown if she will try to run for the top spot this time around.

It’s early in the election season so anything can happen I will try to keep everyone posted on who does what in what race. Hopefully 2010 will be year New York can start cleaning up the mess that is Albany.

Libertarians must take a stand on illegal immigration

While I didn't seem to think that the illegal immigration debate wouldn't come up till after Sotomayor was nominated or not it seems that Obama is intent in doing some serious multitasking. Libertarians for the most part are divided on this issue but this division will come back to bite us if we don't put up a common front.

As most of us know the illegal immigration debate is divided into the following groups:

1. Grant amnesty, keep immigration flowing

2. No amnesty, restrict immigration 2a. no immigrants period 2b. no immigration from non-white countries

3. No amnesty, keep immigration flowing but eliminate the red tape

Conservatives who fall in the second category are attempting to paint Libertarians as apart of the open borders left. I saw a video from the Cato Institute that had Jim Harper discussing on how our immigration policy should be structured and the Fox News anchor tried to pin him in the same league is Nancy Pelosi. Interesting enough Sarah Palin said before the election that she didn't believe in mass deportation of illegal immigrants but that barely made a peep among conservative voices.

The stereotype that Libertarians don't believe in the rule of law has been used like a billy club by conservatives especially on this issue. We have to get the message out there that we support a third option in the illegal immigration debate. Contrary to what the left and right tell say more people would support the third option than the first or second. It's not like we don't have a voice in the media who supports the third option. Lou Dobbs of CNN is on tape saying that he is very pro-legal immigration but is against amnesty, he is someone we can work with despite being an economic protectionist.

During the height of the swine flu "scare" the national party issued a statement for Obama to close the border with Mexico until the "scare" had passed. I didn't think much of it until I got an email from the local libertarian group that the national party was supporting xenophobia. I had emailed them back supporting national's decision to do that because at the time it was a national security issue, never got a response back by the way. I can understand why some Libertarians would see this move xenophobic since xenophobia and bigotry is very anti-liberty but we also should remember that complaining about bigots only gives them legitimacy. Sadly the left has yet to learn this lesson. Yes there is no denying the fact that racist and/or anti-immigrant groups (neo-nazis, kkk, coalition of conservative citizens, minutemen, etc) have used the illegal immigration debate as a cover to spread their bigotry. There is no denying of this fact but in addition to acknowledging them keeping the issue open only makes their cause stronger. If and when illegal immigration is solved the correct way these groups won't have anything to stand on (for the time being) and will self expose their true colors when they no longer have a banner to hide behind.

The illegal immigration issue is another great chance for us to inject our influence into the Republicans and/or the Democrats. We cannot let the ultra nationalist Paleoconservatives, other anti-legal immigrant groups and the pro-amnesty left win this fight. We must stand for liberty and the rule of law.

Should Libertarians and Conservatives work together?

It's a thought that has been floating around in Libertarian circles since the election. Hell even it's been discussed at my local party meetings. Some say that for the good of the country we are going to have to swallow our pride, others believe that conservatives deserve to wallow in the mess they created by betraying their so-called principals for power. One my own personal gripe is why should we trust them when all they do is just pay us lip service and if they aren't paying us lip service they will use the fear game of the Democrats being in power.

Peter Schiff gave a speech to a group of Connecticut Libertarians a few days ago saying that the only way to get Libertarian minded people elected is to infiltrate the Republicans. Some say that it's impossible due to the fact that the influence the big government Christian Right and Neoconservatives still have. Then there are the Paleoconservatives who are mostly composed of old Cold Warriors who believe in economic crushing protectionist policies. With these three different types of conservatives who support big government one way or another it's really no wonder why we are skeptical of this idea, despite the amount of respect we have for Peter Schiff.

In all of our differences the one single thing that unites us is taxes for the most part. Things aren't getting better and time is getting short. If we are to take back the country from the right and left wing statist we are going to have to make a choice and hope it's the right choice.

Here is the video of Peter Schiff suggesting the idea

The left needs to leave Miss California alone

To start off I am pro gay marriage because there is no evidence on how it affects my rights what so ever. It wouldn't very Libertarian of me to believe the Government jack boot should be allowed to enforce private morals.

When I heard about Miss California saying that she was against gay marriage I shrugged it off and went about my business. Unfortunately others didn't want to take that lying down and the fashion left began their assault. Well the assault had a side affects; the freepers, the evangelicals and every other right wing group out there picked it up on their radar screens and went to defend her from the "evil" liberals. Since the social and religious right have no actual facts to oppose gay marriage other than religious reasons they use situations like this to further the lie that there is the so called homosexual agenda. The typical lies that are said are that homosexuals are going to molest children, make religion illegal, introduce socialism (despite majority of socialist/communist countries outlawed homosexuality) and other bs. Oh course most people know these attacks are nothing but lies but when they use these attacks along side when someone is criticized for not supporting gay marriage it will sometime resonate in the minds of people that are still in the middle when it comes to the issue.

I can understand that those who support gay marriage must fight it's critics at every turn but this isn't a battle worth fighting. Miss California isn't a politician and she doesn't head a PAC although with this incident the woman might have been turned into a social/religious right crusader but who knows. Attacking her does not help the movement and only plays into the hand of the opposition. One should take a page out of the Conservative play book and ignore insignificant threats. When Specter switched to the Democrats the Conservatives shrugged and went about their business, they also do this when the Hollywood left opens their mouths. They know that attacking a private citizen (as in not a politician) doesn't do much good in the eyes of public opinion. It shows that they are nothing but bullies, and now the left and gay rights groups look like the bully. If Perez Hilton didn't go off on Miss California it wouldn't made much of a big deal. Yea the religious and social conservatives would've brought it up to show that another high profile American is against gay marriage but thats it. All it would've shown is that Miss California has a opinion just like everyone else.

Enemy of the State? Meh,tell me something I don't know

So this past week another memo from our glorious Department of Homeland Security with it's list of potential terrorists, extremists and the like. Once again innocent and non-violent groups are lumped into with neo-nazis, skinheads, anarchists, black panthers and other violent organizations. There really wasn't much difference between this memo and the one that popped up in Missouri last month with the exception of also mentioning clothing styles of extremists oh and now the Puerto Rican Independence movement is now listed. Granted that there is a political party in Puerto Rico that supports that idea but since when do Feds do any actual fact checking. It kinda makes me want a Klan and Black Panther come back just for the clowns that run DHS can see what a real extremist is.

I don't about some of you but I was considered a traitor way before Obama and his boys got into the White House. I was against the neoconservative project of nation and empire building, the blind support for Israel, the millions of tax payer money going to other countries, government legislating morality and faith-based programs. I support the Church State Separation, actual diplomacy with talking instead through the barrel of a gun, you know the type of foreign policy Thomas Jefferson believed in. Of course to the Conservatives in the Bush era said I was a Communist (despite having a Vietnam Vet for a Father and an Uncle, while some of the biggest voices in Conservative media never wore the uniform), terrorist sympathizer, anti-American oh and an illegal alien being Hispanic and all. I heard the usual Support the President and the like and I said no. I can't support someone who is engaging in activities that I firmly believe are wrong. Of course that was then.

Now that the Liberals are in power and I don't have too much love for their polices either so in their eyes I'm the extremist, the threat and whatever else label they can come up with. I personally did not attend the Tea Party in my area because they didn't like the fact that I didn't support Bush and alot of other neoconservative polices. Not to say that all the Tea Parties were neoconservative whinefests just the one by me was. As a rule I always let my opinions known to make sure that the particular protest I go to actually has to do with the subject at hand and not just an anti-liberal, anti-conservative jack off fest. With Conservatives along side us Libertarians being targeted by the Federal Government jack boot some are starting see that they were wrong in the last go around. Others still defend the police harassment of anti-war, and other left wing groups. I sometimes gloat at the fact that what had went around during Bush has came around under Obama but realize that I can gloat in private.

Some may say that I'm not taking this seriously, but I am but I also refuse to go hysterical about it. Honest and proper disagreements are much better in a civilized society than screaming liberal and conservative talking points. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution still exist in this country and if I'm a Communist or a Fascist because I believe in both than so be it. I rather be an enemy of the state than cattle mooing for the pat on the head.